Content

Notification of
decision following a Licensing Sub-Committee hearing to determine a
review application for a premises licence submitted under s34 of
the Licensing Act 2003
 
Premises:    299-303 Chiswick High Road, Chiswick W4
4HH
 
Applicant for Premises
Licence:  KSMV
Properties Limited (company number 13063529)
 
Applicant:    Licensing Authority, The London
Borough of Hounslow
 
TAKE NOTICE THAT ON Tuesday 15
October 2024 following a hearing before the Licensing and General
Purposes Sub-Committee (the “Licensing Panel” or
“Panel”),
 
HOUNSLOW COUNCIL, as the Licensing
Authority for the Premises RESOLVED as follows:
 
1)   
The Licensing Panel convened in person on 15th October
2024 to determine an application to vary the Premises Licence for
299-303 Chiswick High Road, Chiswick W4 4HH
(“the Premises”) made under
Section 34 of the Licensing Act 2003 (“the
Act”).  The
Panel was quorate and all Panel members were present in person and
saw and heard all the written and oral representations.
 
2)   
A copy of the application was shown at Appendix A of the agenda
(the “Application”) and the applicant sought to
remove Condition 18 from the existing Premises Licence, which
limits the playing of regulated entertainment to the basement
only.  A copy of the current licence was
shown at Appendix B (the “Current Licence”) of
the agenda. 
 
3)   
No other changes were proposed, although there is a purported
condition in Section Md) of the application that, “Noise
levels as recommended in the noise report 1082985-01 dated
24/04/2024 to be adhered to at all times.”  It was confirmed during the hearing that this
noise report dated 24/04/20204 did not actually contain any such
recommendation, and the day before the hearing the applicant also
provided an updated noise report dated 14 October 2024, which also
did not recommend a noise level. 
Therefore, this proposed condition is not applicable.
 
4)   
The Licensing Panel carefully considered all the relevant
information including:
•      
Written and oral representations made by all the parties
•      
The Licensing Act 2003 and the steps appropriate to promote the
Licensing Objectives
•      
The guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003
(“the Statutory Guidance”)
•      
Hounslow Council’s Statement Licensing Policy 2020-2025
(“the Council’s Policy”)
•      
The Human Rights Act 1998
 
5)   
The premises are situated in an area of mixed commercial and
residential properties and the applicant intended to combine the
properties at 299 Chiswick High Road with 301-303 Chiswick High
Road.  The current licence was granted
only 3 months ago following a Licensing Panel hearing on 17July
2024.
 
6)   
During the consultation process the authority received six
responses, all objecting to the application.  One objection was from a ward member, Councillor
Biddolph, with five other objections were from nearby residents.
These objections are shown at Appendix C and Appendix
D respectively, and one of the principal issues they raised was
about the potential for public nuisance by playing loud music on
the ground floor of the premises, especially low frequency music
(e.g., bass level music) which could travel some distance as well
as cause vibrations.  Concerns were also
raised about potential public nuisance from customers as they left
the premises, as well as public safety and crime and disorder.
 
7)   
For the applicant, Mr Hirji of the Applicant company was in
attendance, along with Mr Gibson as his representative.  Councillor Biddolph and two of the resident
objectors were also in attendance.
 
8)   
It should be stressed that the application was very limited in
scope and regulated entertainment would already be permitted until
23:00 hours Monday to Sunday on both the ground floor and
basement.  Therefore, the removal of
Condition 18 from the current licence would mean that such
regulated entertainment would be permitted on the ground floor for
a further hour (until 00:00) on Sunday to Thursday, and for a
further two hours (until 01:00 the following day) on Friday and
Saturday.
 
9)   
The premises was not yet open and, as referred to in the
application, the applicant stated that the variation was being
sought as they had been informed by an officer in the
Council’s Building Control Team that, due to the lack of easy
access to the basement for those with a disability, they could be
at risk of disability discrimination by only allowing regulated
entertainment in the basement only. Mr Hirji further explained that
the premises were intended to be a restaurant and lounge, not a
nightclub, and that he wanted to attract more business to this end
of Chiswick High Road, which had less footfall that other areas
further up the road. 
 
10)The Panel was informed that the
updated noise report had tested music at very loud music levels of
93db and the noise test also included bass heavy frequency, i.e.,
low frequency noise.  The result was
that there was minimal break out of noise outside the front of the
premises when the doors were closed.  At
the rear of the premises music was heard at measurable levels but
was not deemed to be impacting on residents. When the front doors
were open the noise was noticeable, although it was later stated by
Mr Hirji that they would be installing a noise curtain by the front
door and improving the noise insulation to the rear fire door, as
recommended in the noise report dated 14October 2024.
 
11)Mr Gibson stated that the
overall conclusion was that the music was contained within the
envelope of the premises and it was also stated that the equipment
volume level was controlled and would not exceed a certain
level.  Mr Hirji stated that they had
installed noise insulation to the walls and ceiling and that this
exceeded the level requested by Building Control, albeit that was
proposed as part of their planning application, not for the
application.
 
12)The agent also corrected an
error in the Noise Management Plan attached as Appendix E to the
noise report dated 14 October 2024, which referred to regulated
entertainment taking place in the basement only.
 
13)The objectors all expressed
their concern that allowing the playing of regulated entertainment
on the ground floor would cause nuisance to residents nearby due to
the potential for loud music to be played on the ground floor, and
from customers after they left the premises, including any
customers loitering outside the premises.   Councillor Biddolph also expressed concern
over the potential nuisance caused by low frequency noise, and
referred to how such low frequencies at music festivals at
Gunnersbury Park could be heard over a mile away and caused
vibrations too.  Questions were also
raised as to whether the noise reports only carried out testing on
the basement level or if the tests had also been carried out on the
ground floor.  
 
14)Mr Hirji and Mr Gibson explained
that the sound system for the ground floor and basement were all
tied into one sound system and the controls for the same would be
kept in a locked area.  Mr Gibson stated
that they would be happy to accept a condition whereby the noise
level for the sound system could be set by the Council’s
Environmental Health Team.
 
15)Mr Hirji pointed out the
Packhorse Pub, which is near the premises, had later closing times
than this premises, were bigger in terms of floor area than the
premises, and that the resident objectors had confirmed they were
not aware of any issues from their customers.  One of the objectors pointed out that the pub had
door staff, which Mr Hirji stated they could have as well.
 
16)Mr Hirji also explained that he
did not expect all the customers to leave the premises at the very
end of the evening and that he expected people to gradually leave
as the evening went on, so there would not be a large exodus of
people at closing time.  He hoped a
number of the customers would be local people, who would be able to
walk home or catch a bus, in which case they are unlikely to linger
outside the premises.
 
Decision
 
17)In considering the application
and representations, the panel considered the statutory guidance
which states:
 
“Public
Nuisance
2.15          The 2003
Act enables licensing authorities and responsible authorities,
through representations, to consider what constitutes public
nuisance and what is appropriate to prevent it in terms of
conditions attached to specific premises licences and club premises
certificates. It is therefore important that in considering the
promotion of this licensing objective, licensing authorities and
responsible authorities focus on the effect of the licensable
activities at the specific premises on persons living and working
(including those carrying on business) in the area around the
premises which may be disproportionate and unreasonable. The issues
will mainly concern noise nuisance, light pollution, noxious smells
and litter.
 
2.19          Where
applications have given rise to representations, any appropriate
conditions should normally focus on the most sensitive periods. For
example, the most sensitive period for people being disturbed by
unreasonably loud music is at night and into the early morning when
residents in adjacent properties may be attempting to go to sleep
or are sleeping. This is why there is still a need for a licence
for performances of live music between 11 pm and 8 am. In certain
circumstances, conditions relating to noise emanating from the
premises may also be appropriate to address any disturbance
anticipated as customers enter and leave.”
 
18)As stated earlier, the scope of
the application was very limited in seeking to remove one
condition, and the panel noted the concerns of the objectors about
the potential for public nuisance due to noise from music being
played on the ground floor of the premises, potentially until 00:00
on Sunday to Thursday or 01:00 the following morning on Friday and
Saturday.  On the other hand, the
applicant stated that they had installed noise insulation above
that required by the Council’s Building Control Team as part
of their planning application, and they had provided two noise
reports that stated noise level tests had actually been carried out
and that, “noise from activity inside the building is
contained in the building envelope” (Noise report dated
14th October 2024, paragraph 12.2).  Mr Hirji also informed the Panel that insulation
had been installed on the walls and ceiling and both he and Mr
Gibson stated the noise tests included low frequency
tests.  Given the noise reports stated
they had actually tested the sound system in the premises at very
loud volumes, the panel was minded to favour the conclusion of the
noise report dated 14 October 2024.
 
19)The current licence already
contained at Condition 8 a restriction on doors and windows of the
premises being kept open from 23:00 when regulated entertainment
was being provided, save for access and egress, and if this, along
with the noise insulated curtain and remedial works to the rear
fire exit were carried out, this should further reduce the risk of
noise leakage outside the premises.  
 
20)To further reduce the risk of
public nuisance, the panel also considered it advisable to add a
condition whereby the maximum sound levels of the sound system in
the premises was set by an officer from the Council’s
Environmental Health Team and/or the Council’s Licensing
Enforcement Team. 
 
21)The panel had, therefore,
decided to GRANT the variation to the premises licence as
follows:
 
a.   
Condition 18 of the current licence was deleted and replaced with
the following condition:
 
“The maximum
noise level permitted by the sound system used at the premises
shall be set at a level determined by and to the satisfaction of an
authorised officer of the Council’s Environmental Health Team
(or similar role) or by an authorised officer of the
Council’s Licensing Enforcement Team.  The maximum noise level permitted shall not be
altered without prior agreement with the Environment Health Team or
Licensing Enforcement Team.”
 
Right to Appeal
 
22)Any party aggrieved with the
decision of the Licensing Panel on one or more grounds set out in
Schedule 5 of Licensing Act 2003 may appeal to the local
Magistrate’s Court within 21 days of notification of this
decision.